Search for: "People v. Church"
Results 1461 - 1480
of 2,292
Sorted by Relevance
|
Sort by Date
27 Aug 2021, 4:30 pm
Otto v. [read post]
22 Jun 2018, 1:00 pm
Supreme Court granted cert in Timbs v. [read post]
8 Mar 2012, 8:04 am
“Our government for 220 years has respected the religious views of the American people and for all of this time there’s been an exception for those churches and other groups to protect the religious beliefs that they believe in. [read post]
4 Feb 2016, 12:01 am
Since the 1954 Brown v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 8:10 am
However, judicial office holders who blog (or who post comments on other people’s blogs) must not identify themselves as members of the judiciary. [read post]
26 Nov 2023, 4:55 am
: on the peculiar obsolescence of Article 3 para. 3: a weird provision that forbids “official” translation of Scripture “without prior sanction by the Autocephalous Church of Greece and the Great Church of Christ in Constantinople”. [read post]
19 Sep 2024, 4:39 am
” It’s true that the words “separation of church and state” appear nowhere in the Constitution. [read post]
14 Jul 2016, 6:00 am
As the TTAB ruled earlier this year in Noble House Home Furnishings, LLC v. [read post]
30 May 2023, 5:13 am
It animated his final Religion Clauses opinion, a 2022 dissent in Carson v. [read post]
13 Dec 2024, 12:38 pm
The justices also granted review in Diamond Alternative Energy v. [read post]
26 Nov 2024, 9:13 am
Almost everything else was constitutionally off the table pursuant to two Supreme Court cases, Meek v. [read post]
3 May 2019, 1:43 pm
Rich people go to church, which is irrational. [read post]
9 May 2022, 6:00 am
He once opposed Roe v. [read post]
17 Aug 2012, 2:11 pm
Vitale and Abington School District v. [read post]
15 Jan 2012, 4:06 pm
The Press Gazette reports that Charlotte Church is suing the The People newspaper for a story that alleged she proposed to her boyfriend while drunk and singing karaoke in a pub. [read post]
16 Nov 2021, 12:00 am
Resources Legal Cases Riley v. [read post]
2 Sep 2010, 8:55 am
None of the legal arguments employed in Perry v. [read post]
23 Aug 2023, 5:01 am
Arnold, not People v. [read post]
13 Jun 2011, 9:43 am
This event commemorated the 1967 Supreme Court case of Loving v. [read post]
9 May 2017, 4:30 pm
But, by the end of the 1800s, this rationale lost currency, and by 1917 (in Bowman v Secular Society [1917] AC 406), the House of Lords held that blasphemy protected the religious sensitivities of the individual; but the courts still confined the scope of the offence to the established Church (this was confirmed as recently as 1991 in R v Chief Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate, ex parte Choudhury [1991] 1 QB 429). [read post]
